The mind and the blind
Discovery states thatThe theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.John Heskett describes design as thehuman nature to shape and make our environment in ways without precedent in nature, to serve our needs and give meaning to our lives. Everything that doesn't exist in nature naturally was designed by human beings. Everyday observation understates the fact that design doesn't come falling from thin air. Human beings are intelligent agents. Intelligent design challenges evolution theory which is based on mindless naturalism. Therefore it is under attack from the powerful world of mainstream science. But according to science we should follow the evidence where it leads and let reality speak for itself. Design involves a designer. This website started with an idea inside my mind. My mind wilfully controlled my physical body in order to convey that idea from mindful reality into material reality. Every known creation starts with an idea inside the mind. This understates the logical idea of mind over matter, intelligent design over naturalism.
How the brain generates awareness, thought, perceptions, emotions, and so forth, what philosophers call “the hard problem of consciousness.” It's a hard one indeed, so hard that despite an immense amount of research attention devoted to neurobiology, and despite great advances in our knowledge, I don't believe we are significantly closer to bridging the gap between that which is physical, anatomical and electro-neurochemical, and what is subjectively experienced by all of us ... or at least by me... But the hard problem of consciousness is so hard that I can't even imagine what kind of empirical findings would satisfactorily solve it.
The implications are clear enough while theoretically it might be possible for neuroscientists to know everything about the physical structure of the brain, its 'product' the mind with its thoughts and ideas, impressions and emotions, would still remain unaccounted for. "We seem as far from understanding the brain as we were a century ago," remarked the editor of Nature John Maddox. "Nobody understands how decisions are made or how imagination is set free."
Latest research suggests that the human brain ismade up of around 86 billion neurons, each of which connects to thousands of other neurons. It is the most complex biological structure on earth. Our brain is dynamic and continually changing. Even understanding the much less complex nervous system of a worm is elusive. That's interesting, because such an incredibly complex organ popped into existence with the Cambrian Explosion, the relatively short period in history when all known phyla emerged suddenly complete with incredibly complex brains and nervous systems. How could that happen? A mind is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, creation, judgement, and memory. Emerson M. Pugh said thatIf the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't.Science is a product of the human mind, and it can therefore never fully explain the human mind. The created can never be equal to, or greater than, the Creator. The limits of science are real. Phenomena like the placebo effect understate that mind is a mystery to science. The mind-body problem shows that the mind is beyond science. Those who believe that science will one day explain everything are blind. Virginia Woolf once said:Lock up your libraries if you like; but there is no gate, no lock, no bolt that you can set upon the freedom of my mind.
Darwin once said...
But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
He also said:There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.Throughout history it is full well known that the human mind is very different from that of animals. The human mind is capable of design, creation, art, beauty, thinking about past and future, making an agenda, belief, science, morality, etcetera. The difference between creating computers and using sticks is enormous. The gap between incredibly complex human language and the very limited set of sounds of animals is huge. There are no talking monkeys simply because they don't have the ability to develop a language. Darwin was a bad philosopher who based his conclusions on weak science and much metaphysics. The problems for naturalism with the human mind are striking. This has even led evolutionists to make up a theory called evolutionary psychology with which they compare the human mind to a mechanical machine and use methods like reductionism to explain this incredibly complex phenomenon which is obviously way beyond the limits of science. It's like explaining holistic phenomena with reductionist methods. Like explaining computer science with sticks. Darwin wondered whether anyone couldtrust in the convictions of a monkey's mind. But the question is rather: would anyone trust in the convictions of a self-proclaimed monkey descendant's mind?
According to a fanatic...
Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. ... natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. ... Our brains were designed to understand... What about our own bodies? Each one of us is a machine, like an airliner only much more complicated. Were we designed on a drawing board too, and were our parts assembled by a skilled engineer? The answer is NO.
Richard Dawkins is a fanatic evolutionist and atheist who attacks intelligent design because it doesn't fit with his narrow-minded belief. Despite denying observable design he uses the word "design" a lot in order to explain what we see in this world. He admits that specified complexity exists in life. But specified complexity does not come falling from thin air. It is caused by intelligent agents. What we know from reality is that design requires a designer and creation requires a creator. Evolutionists and atheists are forced by the unprovable philosophy naturalism to deny anything that even hints for design. The term "blind watchmaker" is an oxymoron. The ones who are blind are the evolutionists, blinded by naturalism.
Here's an excerpt of William Paley's watch argument...
In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place, I should hardly think of the answer which I had given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone; why is it not admissible in that second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive — what we could not discover in the stone — that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e.g., that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, or placed in any other manner or in any other order than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. This mechanism being observed ... the inference we think is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker — that there must have existed, at some time and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer, who comprehended its construction and designed its use.
That sums it up well.
We recently heard Prof. Joseph Henry, in a brief address, say substantially: "If I take brass, glass, and other materials, and fuse them, the product is a slag. This is what physical laws do. If I take those same materials, and form them into a telescope, that is what mind does." This is the whole question in a nutshell. That design implies an intelligent designer, is a self evident truth. Every man believes it; and no man can practically disbelieve it. Even those naturalists who theoretically deny it, if they find in a cave so simple a thing as a flint arrow-head, are as sure that it was made by a man as they are of their own existence. And yet they want us to believe that an eagle's eye is the product of blind natural causes. No combination of physical forces ever made a ship or a locomotive. It may, indeed, be said that they are dead matter, whereas plants and animals live.
When archaeologists find something as simple as a piece of a pot in the earth they immediately know it was made by intelligent agents. But when an evolutionist has to explain the appearance of all phyla with the Cambrian explosion he is quick to invoke mindless naturalistic processes as the cause. When people go to the library they know that books were written by intelligent agents. But when evolutionists are asked to explain how incredibly complex first life and its genetic code came into existence they immediately invoke mindless naturalistic processes. But everybody simply knows such things are not formed naturally. Evolutionists are forced by the unprovable philosophy naturalism to deny the obvious. The elements of nature are obviously not capable of intelligent design. The universal law of entropy confirms it. Even if we have never seen the Designer, design can be detected in the observable fine-tuned universe and the incredibly complex life in it. Isaac Newton saidDid blind chance know that there was light and what was its refraction and fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it?*.
The key test is this: show me a process that generates information, and large amounts of specified information, without the guidance of an intelligent agent. ... everything we know is that only intelligence produces information. So test our theories against our knowledge of the cause and effect structure of the world. ... there are some very key things that Darwinian evolution, and in particular chemical evolutionary theory of the origin of first life, cannot and has not explained. ... Any theory that can’t account for the origin of information when we now understand that information runs the show in biology is a theory that has a serious theoretical gap.
This is the key issue. What is the origin of specified information? Such a process obviously doesn't exist in the natural world. No matter how fanatic evolutionists and atheists attack the design argument, specified information and complexity are created by intelligent agents, not by mindless naturalistic processes. This website was intelligently designed to communicate a message to other intelligent human beings. The information is not accidental but intentional. All characters were carefully placed in a specific order to create a meaningful text that can be understood by other intelligent agents. The chance of getting this website without intelligent intervention is practically zero. The statement of one true scientist or good philosopher is worth much more than the collective statement of a thousand pseudoscientists or bad philosophers from the world of mainstream "science" who all blindly accept the unprovable philosophy naturalism as a fact. Albert Einstein wrote:Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly.That explains well why evolutionists attack anybody who simply speaks his mind honestly and truthfully.
Jerry Bergman - Slaughter of the Dissidents
John Lennox - God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway?
John Lennox - God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?
Werner Gitt - Without Excuse
John Angus Campbell, Stephen C. Meyer - Darwinism, Design and Public Education
Steve Fuller - Science v. Religion? Intelligent Design and the Problem of Evolution
William A. Dembski - No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence
William A. Dembski - The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities
ARN - How Can You Tell if Something is Designed?
William A. Dembski - Detecting Design in the Natural Sciences
Discovery - Frequently Asked Questions
Uncommon Descent - Frequently raised, but weak arguments against Intelligent Design
N. J. Wildberger - Evolution versus Intelligent Design: a mathematician's view
William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II - Life's Conservation Law
Science Against Evolution - The DNA Dilemma
Science Against Evolution - Emerging Complexity